Recent advances in medical technology
have provided human­kind with possibilities and options in such large
numbers and with such rapidity that often questions arise as to what
would be the ethically correct way to realize some
of these possibi­lities. The
transplanting of human organs is one such advance which has encouraged
us to hold out hope for members of the human community afflicted with
various diseases for which there was no hope in the past. However,
there are a number of ques­tions concerning how those organs are to be
obtained for trans­plantation that need to be answered. Moreover,
there are other ways in which we now can use dead human bodies that
raise ethi­cal issues.

Until recently, when a member of the
human community died, the most traditional manner in which the dead
body was handled involved its ultimate burial or entombment or
possibly its cre­mation. Occasionally, when there is need to obtain
further in­formation as to the cause of death, an examination of the
dead remains must be made by a medical specialist. While such
autop­sies are carried out rather regularly, they are not performed
routinely. In fact, while people are aware that dead bodies are
subject to being autopsied, this possibility- does not come readily to
mind when considering what is generally done with dead bodies. Burial
is the most traditional and common method of disposition. Only within
the last 25 years has an entirely new use for dead bodies or ways in
which they will be treated come about, namely, to remove certain
organs from them for the purposes of transplantation in order to
assist other human beings in recovering their health. Rather
spectacular advances in the ability of medical specialists to perform
the physical proce­dures involved in transplantation have been
accompanied by ad­vances in overcoming the body's natural rejection of
foreign material through the use of certain chemicals. With the
publi­city given these developments and the consequent increase in
general awareness there has come a rapid increase in the number of
people seeking aid through transplantation. The problem has arisen, a
natural product of the success of the procedures themselves, that the
present demand for organs far exceeds the supply. Because of a general
insufficiency in the number of organs available, several remedies have
been proposed which have in turn prompted heated debate over the
various advantages and disadvantages. Some critics of the present
voluntary system for the donation of organs have claimed that the
system is too generous in respecting individual liberties through its
insis­tence that individuals and their families explicitly make such

offerings. This generous respect has
led to not enough organs being available for the purposes of medical
therapy. Other critics have found the present system not generous
enough. In fact, some think it too restrictive in not granting enough
respect for the religious beliefs and ethnic customs of the deceased
people and their families. For those who seek to in­crease the number
of organs available for transplantation pur­poses, two remedies appear
to be the most popular. The first may be titled "presumed consent" and
the second "routine sal­vaging." Each of the two proposed remedies
represents a basic departure from the present voluntary system. Under
"presumed consent," dead bodies would be used by medical authorities
as those authorities see fit, unless the deceased person or their next
of kin explicitly indicated a substantial objection. It would be the
reverse of the present voluntary system. The second proposal, "routine
salvaging," would involve utilization of dead bodies as the medical
authorities deem proper without regard to the wishes of the deceased
persons or the next of kin's wishes. While each of these remedies
might obtain larger numbers of organs for transplantation purposes and
thus help restore the health of many human beings, many people still
fear that the proposals present too drastic a change from the present
voluntary system and involve a violation of proprietary rights of next
of kin and the right of religious practice for the deceased and the
next of kin as well. Before examining the merits and the disadvantages
of these proposals, it would be instructive to survey the present
situation and present set of options.

When human beings die, their dead
bodies are referred to as "corpse" or "cadaver." Sometimes, utilizing
a euphemism, the dead body is referred to as the "remains," a term
most common in relation to funerals. What is done with such cadavers
falls under the legislative guidelines established by the indi­vidual
states. In general, the following things can be said. After the
pronouncement of death, the accurate establishment of the cause of
death is in order and legally required. The medical examiner will take
control of the body in order to per­form such an examination, unless
the dead person had been under a doctor's care recently and the
deceased's physician or hospi­tal authority is willing to certify that
the cause of death was natural or accidental. In the event of the
suspicion of homi­cide, suicide, or contagious disease, or in cases
involving work­er's compensation, the corpse will fall under the
control of the medical examiner for a thorough examination and
determination of death. When a medical examiner takes control of the
body, it is generally for a short period of time and after 24 hours to
72 hours, the body is given over to the next of kin for proper and
final disposition.

Historically, the next of kin have
exercised proprietary rights in the control of dead bodies. From a
tradition based on decisions of the ecclesiastical courts comes the
notion that the next of kin have not only the right or privilege, but
the duty as well, to see to the proper disposition of the remains of
their loved ones. It is to be noted that the rights exercised by the
next of kin are proprietary rights and not property rights. A property
right, if granted in control of a dead body, would make human beings
into property. Property is that which can be bought or sold. In the
United States, based upon the United States Constitution, human beings
are not considered as property and neither are their bodies. Thus,
human beings are not to be bought or sold whether alive or dead.
Consequently, a person may not indicate in any binding way the manner
in which their body is to be disposed of through a document, such as a
will, which controls only the disposition of property. Individuals may
indicate in such a document or in some other form what they wish would
be done with their dead body; however, the next of kin are not bound,
except morally, to follow such instructions. The only cases in which
next of kin have been legally encouraged, if not obliged, to dispose
of the dead body of a relative have been in cases where real property
assignment was made or decreed contingent upon the next of kin's
performance of certain acts after the death of the person who made the
will. It is clear then, that up until 1968, and in most cases
thereafter, indivi­duals have had no legal way to direct the
disposition of their dead remains. Since 1968, individuals may legally
indicate that they wish their whole body or certain parts thereof to
be utilized for medical purposes involving either therapy or
education. This limited control is the outcome of the passage by all
fifty- states of what is known as the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act
(1968). More will be said about this act later.

Far less often than dead bodies are
autopsied by medical examiners are dead bodies given over to a medical
institution for the purposes of experimentation, research or
education. Individuals may now indicate through the execution of a
uniform donor card or other legal document that they wish the whole of
their dead body be given over for such purposes after their death.
Bodies that are not claimed by any next of kin after varying amounts
of time, ranging from thirty to ninety days after the time of death,
may also be used for such purposes although, again generally speaking,
such bodies are not in a condition to permit much valuable research or
education to be accomplished. In the absence of an explicit objection,
the next of kin may also make such a donation of an entire body to
medical science, although this is very rarely done.

There are reports of individuals who
have requested that their bodies be placed in cryonic suspension, that
is, "frozen." Such cases are very limited in number, involving no more
than several dozen for the entire United States in more than two
decades since the process became widely known. The process itself
involves a very large initial expense of five to ten thousand dollars
and an annual maintenance expense of several thousand dollars.
Individuals who have such procedures performed usually do so with the
expectation that at some time in the future, when a cure is discovered
for whatever disease caused their death, their bodies will be thawed
out, cured of the disease, and thus restored to life. Such individuals
demonstrate more of a pathological denial of death than anything else.
There is no known case of any animal, let alone human animal,
surviving such a procedure. The procedure takes place after death has
been declared and all heart and brain activity are totally absent.
Then all the blood and body fluids are drained and liquid nitrogen and
other chemicals are inserted within the body. The body is kept in that
condition for some time and then the procedure is reversed,
withdrawing the chemicals and reinserting blood and other fluids. No
life form has been restored undergoing such a procedure. Some life
forms, while alive, have had their bodily activities suspended through
a rapid freezing process and after a gradual thaw has demonstrated
life again. But the procedure discussed here with cryogenics is not
the same. What motivates people to have their bodies frozen is not
based on anything that modern science can support.

When someone dies, various sets of
interests come into play and sometimes into conflict. There are the
interests held by the individual who dies, that person's family and
next of kin, and the state. Each of the holders of these interests has
different value system which they hope to realize and act in accord
with. No subsequent discussion of what legislative action regarding
obtaining organs should proceed without reflec­ting upon these basic
sets of interests. First then, most people would like to think that
foremost are the interests of the individual person who may be
concerned with the manner in which his or her dead body will be
treated. The individual person may be so unconcerned for emotional
reasons, for reasons of religious convictions and customs, out of
concern for his/her own survivors, the ethnic customs or practices of
his/her family, or simply for aesthetic reasons. Individuals may or
may not want certain things done with or to his/her body. The second
set of interests are those of the family and the next of kin, who for
reasons similar to the individual who died, may or may not want to
have certain procedures performed with the dead body of their loved
one. The third set of interests is those of the state which desires to
have sufficient cadaver resources to fulfill the purposes of medical
education. The fourth set of interests is again those of the state in
securing control of dead bodies for the purpose of determining
accurately the cause of death. This is especially the case with
suspicion of homicide, suicide, or contagious disease. The fifth set
of interests again are those of the state in securing a sufficient
supply of cadaver resources for medical therapy, that is, for
transplantation of organs and other uses of dead bodies for the
benefit of other members of society. While it appears the state and
its interests may outnumber those of the family and the individual who
has died, nevertheless, at the present time, there is basically a
voluntary system that has been created in the United States which
acknowledges the right of the individual and the rights of the family
to dispose of the remains. Only in cases involving suicide, homicide,
contagious disease, and worker's compensation will the state take
control of the dead body and then only for a short period of time.

The present voluntary system for
dealing with the remains of human beings is that which the United
States has in common with Great Britain, Ireland, New Zealand, South
Africa, and several other nations of the world. Anyone over 18 years
of age and mentally competent may fill out a uniform donor card or a
facsimile thereof indicating on it that he/she desires his/her entire
body or certain organs or parts thereof to be made available to
medical authorities for therapeutic or re­search purposes upon his/her
death. If such cards are found at the time of death and are properly
witnessed by two people, the donation or gift may be accomplished. In
the absence of such indication, the next of kin are entitled under the
law to make such a disposition as well. The next of kin are defined by
the various states, with minor variations, as the spouse or, following
that person, the children of the deceased, then the siblings, then the
grandchildren, then the grandparents. Where there is only one at the
closest level of kinship, that person decides. Where there are two at
the closest level of kinship, they must both agree. If there are more
than two at the next level of kinship, a majority is required. If the
per­son who is now deceased objected to the use of his/her body in any
certain or particular way, then no such use could be made of the body
if that objection were made known, although it is not clear how such
objections are to be recorded and made known. Thus, under the present
voluntary system, the individuals are given first privilege and
acknowledgement in determining the disposition of their own dead
bodies with regard to medical purposes.

The present system has a-number of
problems with it. There has been an insufficiency in the cadaver
resources made available under it. Second, the system has proven
difficult to work with in a number of different ways. Third, since the
law which esta­blished the system went into effect in 1968, several
states have enacted different laws stipulating definitions of death
which make donations made by people under the Uniform Anatomical Gift
Act take on various meanings in the different states which the
individual filling out the donor card may not have realized. Fourth,
they have developed entirely new uses for dead bodies unforeseen in
1968 which the individual donor may not be aware of and is now liable
to be used for, concerning which the unsus­pecting donors may have
reservations.

The present system has not been working
to provide us with a sufficient number of organs for transplantation.
While many people are made aware of their right to donate through
publicity campaigns and recent news stories featuring tragic, and at
times miraculous, events and through the distribution of uniform donor
cards with automobile operator licenses, still the vast and
over­whelming majority of Americans have not been donating. Most
donations of organs are made by the next of kin. In fact, region­al
transplant centers approach next of kin directly in cases of people
who are being maintained in a coma and who are expected to die
shortly, rather than search for a donor card. Most dona­tions are
achieved by members of such regional groups soliciting the donation
from the next of skin who themselves may or may not have been aware of
the wishes of their loved one. Highlighting the shortage of organs
have been recent publicity campaigns con­ducted in various
communication media by families of children in need of organs. While
several such publicity campaigns have proven successful in obtaining
organs for the individual children that prompted the campaign, many
others have not. Such campaigns raise ethical questions as to whether
or not those who have access to the media should be the ones to
receive the organs first when other children who may be in greater
physical need of organs, but without access to the media, would have
to wait and perhaps die. Should the access that one has to the media
be the determining factor in whether or not one obtains an organ?
Others see such campaigns as being beneficial because they in­crease
the awareness of the public as to the need for organs and encourage
the public to make the donations.

To further illustrate the inadequacy of
the supply of organs, there have been recent stories of attempts by
some to create a system for the purchase of organs. Such proposals
have provoked a great deal of criticism prompting legislative
prohibitions. Further illustration of the lengths to which some people
will go to obtain cadaver resources or organs for transplantation is
the set of international agreements which the United States has with
various countries, including Russia, for obtaining organs for
transplantation. Occasionally, there will be a story of an organ
transported across international borders to assist someone in the
struggle to survive. The present voluntary sys­tem then is not working
because not enough people are volunteer­ing either their organs or
those of their next of kin for trans­plantation purposes, while
advances in science enable us to transplant more organs and overcome
rejection factors within the body, steadily increasing the demand.

If the first set of objections
concerning the inadequacy were not enough, there are other objections
as well. But it is basically inadequacy of the present system to meet
demands that has prompted the proposed remedies.

There are a number of physical
difficulties involved in the operation of the present voluntary
system. The uniform donor cards must be made available to medical
authorities at the time of death. These cards, however, are often
inacces­sible as people are often involved in circumstances that have
lead to their deaths where the cards would not be available.
Furthermore, the cards are easily altered or destroyed by next of kin
or others who seek to thwart, for whatever purposes, the wishes of the
deceased; that is, donor cards could be de­stroyed by those who do not
wish to let the donation be known and objection cards could be
destroyed by those who wish to have the objection go unnoticed in
order to facilitate the donation. Attempts to remedy these physical
problems through the creation of some central registry (involving
hospitals linked nationwide by a computer system to a central data
bank) lead to further criticism as to the cost and effectiveness of
the operation of such a computerized system. The inefficiency of such
large sys­tems is too well known to too mans- people for them to place
any trust in the accuracy and availability of the information to be
contained within such a system. The present system of uniform donor
cards, as the instrument for the making of the gift, serves mainly as
an educational device. That is to say, people who fill out such cards
educate others, whom they ask to witness such cards, as to their
intentions, and distribution of such cards educates the public as a
whole as to the need for such donations. However, nowhere do the cards
(distributed by the regional cen­ters and by the motor vehicle
departments of the various states) indicate what possible difficulties
lie in the making of dona­tions of an organ or of one's whole body,
nor do they indicate what religious obligations may be in opposition
to the donation of such organs or entire bodies. Thus, on the one
hand, the physical instruments serve as an educational instrument,
while on the other, they educate only to a certain point and not at
all on some of the issues which many people would consi­der the most
significant issues involved in the entire donation process.

The next two difficulties with the
present system are somewhat interrelated. In 1968, when the Uniform
Anatomical Gift Act went into effect, there was only one way in which
a person was pronounced dead in the United States, and that was a
result of the cessation of heart and lung activity, permanent
cessation, irreversible cessation. Since 1968, however, 37 states have
enacted laws defining death in a formal, technical, and legal sense.
Those states have enacted three different forms of laws to handle the
problem of how we define the dead human being. The differences are not
important for the present dis­cussion. What is important, however, is
that the states now permit a person who may have heart and lung
activity sustained by machinery, but who has no brain activity
whatsoever, to be declared legally dead. That person who is in a
medical condi­tion known as irreversible coma could be declared dead,
though his/her body (other than the nervous system) demonstrated
normal signs of organ activity. Thus, in those 37 states, the human
being, who is without brain activity altogether, can be declared dead.
The person with no nervous system functioning, but whose heart and
lungs with other vital organs are kept functioning by machinery, could
be maintained in such a condition for many years while being legally
dead. This presents difficulties for the voluntary system which we
have for the donation of organs. Previously, if a person were to
donate the whole of the body for medical purposes after his/her heart
and lungs had stopped operating completely, the body could be made use
of for very limited purposes for a very brief period of time. A person
who thus finds nothing objectionable in the immediate removal of an
organ or in the investigation of his/her body- for the cause of death
may be disturbed to learn that in some states of the United States,
he/she may, if he/she has checked off that he/she wishes to have
his/her whole body used for medical purposes, be permitting the
extended use of his/her dead body- for a large variety of uses in an
indefinite period of time. This was not
possible prior to 1968. Even now,
some decades later, this is not that well known. It remains a problem
where there is no uniform definition of death in the United States. Even
if there were to be one uniform definition of death in the United
States that would permit the use of the brain criteria, it would still
leave the problem that many people aren't aware of what uses could be
made of their dead bodies when their bodies are declared dead. It is
upon these uses that we will now direct our atten­tion.

In 1968, several
social commentators, including the sociolo­gist, Amitai Etzioni,
declared that it was a terrible waste of resources to bury dead bodies
when it was technically possible to maintain the major organ systems
of the dead bodies with mechanical support for a variety of worthwhile
purposes. First, such bodies could preserve organs for subsequent
transplanta­tion and beyond that, provide resources for medical
education and research. While no formal name has been given to such a
body, several names have been proposed, including "body factory" and "neomort."
A body factory would be a dead body maintained on machines and kept
partially functioning, except for the ner­vous system, for the
purposes of manufacturing or producing substances which could be of
use to other human beings, includ­ing blood, hormones, and organs. In
1974, an article entitled "Harvesting the Dead" appeared in HARPER'S
magazine. In it, Dr. Willard Gaylin proposed another term for such
bodies, "neo­morts." "Neomorts," meaning "newly dead," carried with it
two distinct meanings. First, "newly dead" means recently and under a
new legal definition of death, namely the brain death criteria. "Newly
dead" also means recently in time. These newly dead bodies would be
warm cadavers. They would be respiring and circulating blood with
mechanical assistance demonstrating nor­mal body temperature, pulse,
and other life signs, but no ner­vous system activity at all. These
neomorts presently exist as people who are in irreversible coma but in
those states which do not permit brain death criteria to be employed
in pronounce­ment of death. They number nearly 150,000. Each year in
the United States, through accidents involving damage to nervous
system or diseases which impair the nervous system, 100,000 or more
people could be pronounced dead under the criteria that looks to the
brain and nervous system functioning as the most significant feature
and characteristic of human life, the absence of which constitutes
death. Thus, a community of these neomorts could easily be assembled
in very large numbers and within a decade, they could number 1,000,000
or so. For what purposes, though, would such a large number of
neomorts be as­sembled and maintained and would those purposes have
benefits that outweigh the costs involved?

Neomorts could be used in order to
train health care pro­fessionals, to perform experimentation on, to
bank needed re­sources. These neomorts could be used to train surgeons
in the performance of their surgical routines, even to train health
care professionals in the examination of human bodies without having
to risk endangering or embarrassing live human beings. These bodies
would he susceptible to hemorrhaging if the surgical process were done
wrong or, if a bone were not set properly within them, which would be
evident. They, thus, provide valu­able material for training purposes.
The neomort could also be used for experimental teaching without
endangering the lives of human beings. New techniques of surgery could
be developed through experiments that were more efficient, more
effective, and less dangerous. New drugs could be tested on neomort
bodies. Infection could be deliberately introduced and then fought
with experimental drugs. These bodies could be used to maintain organs
which may later be needed for transplantation, but at the present
time, can only be accomplished if they remain within the human body.
Thus, the banking function is established for neomorts. The banking
function for neomorts would only be valu­able if later the resources
were actually harvested. The neo­morts could be readily drained of
blood in such large quantities that the voluntary blood drives, which
are now conducted across the United States, would be made unnecessary.
In fact, cost benefit analysis has shown that for the obtaining of the
blood alone, the costs involved in maintaining a community of neomorts
would be less than the benefits achieved. In obtaining blood from the
neomorts where the blood and neomort would be examined carefully, the
blood would be known to be free of hepatitis and other diseases which
are transmitted along with blood transfu­sions. People of this country
would no longer have to rely upon donations of blood nor upon
questionable sources for obtain­ing blood if neomorts were used
regularly to provide supplies. Nor would there be periods during which
certain types of surgi­cal procedures would have to be postponed for
lack of sufficient blood supply, as now occurs during the summer
months or at the end of the year. These neomort bodies could be used
to harvest hormones to supplement those who cannot produce hormones on
their own. These hormones could also be used in various cancer
treat­ments. In addition, antibodies could be extracted from the bane
marrow in order to build up the immune systems of those who are born
with severe immune deficiencies; and as a diabetic takes insulin each
day, these people with immune deficiencies would be able to live
normal lives with regular infusions of immuno­logical agents obtained
from neomort bodies.

Beyond all these uses for neomort
bodies is perhaps the most bizarre of all, which now is technically
possible, but has not been actually accomplished the way which will
now be described. A neomort body could be used as an incubator or a
surrogate womb to bring a fetus to term. In fact, it is possible to
take a sperm from a human male, alive or dead, combine it with the
ovum from a human female, alive or dead, implant the resulting product
into the womb of another human female, alive or dead, and have it
brought to term. The normal hormonal triggers re­quired for the
development of the fetus in the womb of a dead human female could be
artificially provided and thus, medical specialists could overcome the
lack of a maternal nervous sys­tem. To demonstrate that such a thing
is possible, one has only to look at the numerous cases already
recorded of women who had entered into a condition of irreversible
coma while pregnant and whose bodies were maintained mechanically, for
over three months in one instance, for the sake of the fetal
development.

Children have been born under such
conditions to mothers who were either legally pronounced dead in those
states which permitted it or kept partially maintained in irreversible
comas in those states which did not permit them to be declared legally
dead. Yet, in both instances, the mothers were in irreversible coma
with no indication of any nervous system activity whatso­ever.

How are dead bodies to be used? How are
dead bodies to be obtained for such uses? Those who wish to donate the
whole of their bodies for medical purposes must be made aware of the
wide variety of purposed which their dead bodies could be made to
serve. Those who are concerned that we are not obtaining sufficient
cadaver resources for transplants and urge moving away from the
voluntary system in order to obtain more organs usually overlook the
uses which a neomort might be made to serve in order to get the public
support for a non-voluntary system.

This present voluntary system for the
donation of organs and bodies was not established with the
consideration of the possibility of neomorts. There is no provision to
permit a donor to place a limit on the uses to which the organ or body
might be put, nor to permit a limitation on the length of time that
the body might be used before it is given over to the next of kin for
final disposition. For example, one could not do­nate his/her entire
body only for 72 hours or for one week, nor could one indicate that
he/she willed his/her entire body for whatever purposes except for the
production of live fetuses from the womb or for new techniques of germ
warfare for the military. Perhaps the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act
could be amended by those who believe in the voluntary system in order
to permit those limitations to be expressed or, for those who do not
like the idea of neomorts at all, to limit the use of bodies to 24
hours or less, or 1(, the use of parts of' the body and not the entire
body.

There are those who would move away
from the present volun­tary system in order to obtain organs. They
recommend that we presume that people would give consent unless they
list their objections. Thus, they would move toward the use of the
dead body in whole or in part as the medical authorities see fit, as
is the case in France, Finland, Greece, Italy, Norway, Spain, Sweden,
Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Denmark. This system works in a fashion
that is the reverse of what is presently done in the United States:
Unless there is an objection expressed by the individual or next of
kin, the cadaver, in whole or in part is taken and used as the medical
authorities see fit. The other system or proposed remedy is "routine
salvaging" which is followed in Russia and Israel and which has been
proposed in the United States. With the system of routine salvaging,
regardless of objections, bodies are taken and used by the medi­cal
authorities as they see fit. This is the reason why there is no
shortage of organs in Russia and why the Russians have generously
offered to exchange organs with the medical authori­ties in the United
States.

Problems exist in moving away from the
present voluntary system because of the desires of individuals or
their next of kin to direct the disposal of that individual's remains
based upon religious convictions as is the case of Orthodox Jews,
Jehovah Witnesses, Christian Scientists, and other religious groups,
or based upon a concern for ethnic customs as is the case with many
other groups of people. In light of these challenges to religious
practices, would a non-voluntary system be constitu­tional? The
constitutional right of religious freedom does not extend to the right
of religious practice. In those cases where religious practices
disturb the community's sense of morality, such religious practices
can be prohibited by law. This is the case with the Mormons who
believe that a man may have more than one wife, yet various states,
including Utah, do not permit polygamy. There is also the case of
Pentecos­talists who inflict venomous snake bites on their children as
a part of a religious service to show that they are among the
"chosen." This is also prohibited. Is the burial of dead bodies a
practice that would offend the community’s sense of morality and good
order? Most people think not. Most people will agree that the burial
of dead bodies has become the custo­mary- practice and thus, provides
the basis for the common order. It is the taking of dead bodies and
not permitting the family to mourn and grieve and bury them, which
would be the disturbance. To restrict religious practice, the state
must be sure that only through taking control of dead bodies in the
"routine salvaging" or "presumed consent" systems could sufficient
organs be obtained. It is under conditions of extreme shortage and
lack of cooperation that the states demonstrate that the order would
be disturbed if the states were not permitted to take control of dead
bodies to remove necessary organs or to use them for other therapeutic
purposes which would include neomorts to be drained regularly,
especially for rare blood types, anti­bodies, and hormones. This is
the reason behind the states' effort to conduct a massive distribution
and education program by attaching uniform donor cards to automobile
operator's licen­ses. The states can now say, both individually and
collectively, that they have made every effort to inform and obtain
voluntary permissions, and these efforts have not worked to produce a
sufficient number of organs; and only through the deliberate taking
control of the dead bodies, despite objections, can the states obtain
the supply of organs to meet the ever-growing demand.

Is this the way we would like to
proceed, or is there any other way- of obtaining needed organs without
overriding the individual's right to express his/her own values and
act on his/her own religious convictions? Are we to be better off as a
community of people who volunteer and give our organs or would we be
better off as a community which takes what it needs despite the
objections of others? It is probably true that human beings would grow
accustomed to any of these systems given a long enough periods of
time, but what would it turn us into in the long run if we were to
become a people who took what was needed despite the objections of
those from whom we took it? What would be the consequences of such
actions on families who need to grieve and need to see the dead body
and place it in a grave in order to begin the mourning process? What
would the consequences be to those who wish to visit the remains of
their loved ones and are not permitted to do so because their bodies
are being used as neomorts?

It was once said that peace would
finally be given to one through death. Gravestones were inscribed with
the hopeful expression "R.I.P."--"Rest In Peace." Will the dead be
left in peace? Will they and their families be permitted to seek their
rest? Or will the bodies of the dead be taken and used for indefinite
periods of time for an indefinite number of purposes? Are we to live
and die in the service of the state? Once one could find "Uncle Sam
Wants You" on signs encouraging young people to serve their country
and save their fellow citi­zens in the armed service. Will the new
signs read ''Uncle Sam Wants You: Dead or Alive?"